The English law may hold a person responsible for the misconduct of another, even though he himself is not at fault (an instance of strict liability

Authors Avatar

The English law may hold a person responsible for the misconduct of another, even though he himself is not at fault (an instance of strict liability), which is termed as vicarious liability. It is liability imposed on an employer to a third party simply because a tort committed by a servant acting in the course of employment resulted in damage. The reason vicarious liability came into law around 1700s can be seen as the increasing hazards caused by employees during their course of employment which necessitated some kind of responsibility in order to compensate the victims. Since then, the courts have shown great emphasis to expand the doctrine of vicarious liability which is regarded as a satisfactory way of providing payment of compensation to injured claimants without imposing excessive burdens on negligent tortfeasors. It is this approach of the courts that has been challenged: Is vicarious liability the best compromise that could have been reached between the tort victims and the businesses?

Vicarious liability although being a firmly established legal principle in common law, it requires some justifications in order to understand if it is the best solution between the tort victims and business. This need probably arises from the departure from the general principles of law of tort that (i)a person should only be held liable for his own acts and omissions; and (ii)where he has been at fault. In other words, while imposing vicarious liability the employer is made to pay even though he is totally free from blame. There are some plausible explanations to justify this departure from these two leading principles of the law of tort.

Regarding the first principle, it is suggested that a person is not liable for his acts or omissions but he is liable to pay damages for the results of his acts or omissions, the law needing to decide whether there is sufficient responsibility for the results of a person’s acts to justify liability. For example, in the case of vicarious liability, it is necessary to show what the employer did or omitted to do results in him being sufficiently responsible to be held liable.

Join now!

Secondly, regarding the fault principle, the damages can bee seen as compensatory rather than penal, insurance against liabilities means that the person who pays the damages is not generally at fault and finally it must be remembered that some costs of accidents are paid by the taxpayers and therefore a specific class of society bears the burden not individuals in many cases. These explanations of the legal principles are not sufficient justifications for vicarious liability and the sole purpose was to show why departure from the two legal principles of tort law does not mean that imposition of vicarious liability ...

This is a preview of the whole essay